THE LICENSING LAW.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4406, 12 July 1901, Page 2

THE LICENSING LAW.

HOTEL COMMONWEALTH. A TARANAKI CASE. In the Supreme Court yesterday, before the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Williams. Mr Justice Dennlston. Mr Justice Conolly and Mr Justice Edwards, argument was heard: in e, case with reference to the licensing of the Hotel Commonwealth, New Plymouth. The case was between Walter Gaukrodger, plaintiff, and Robert Loftus Stanford and Jeremiah O’Driscoll, defendants.

Dr Findlay appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Skerrott, with him Mr Weston, for tin defendant O’Driscoll. Tho plaintiff prayed that a wnt of prohibition might issue to prohibit the defendant Stanford from exercising any .jurisdiction, or from further proceeding in respect of the application of the defendant O’Driscoll for a certificate for a new license; and in the alternative for a writ of certiorari.

The grounds of the motion were—(l) That as the full number of licenses permitted by law was in existence when the application was lodged with the clerk of the Licensing Committee, the clerk could nc,t legally receive the apJilication; (2) that as the full number of icenses permitted was in existence when the application of O’Driscoll came before th e Licensing Committee, the committee had no jurisdiction whatever to hear the application; (3) that fas the whole of tho evidence for the application was heard while the full number of licenses existed, the withdrawal of an existing license at the close of the evidence would not confer jurisdiction upon the Licensing Committee retroactively; (4) that the withdrawal of tho application for the renewal of an existing license does not ipso facto cancel that license; (5) that the-withdrawal of the application for renewal of the* license for Village Inn and the application of O’Driscoll for a new license in New Plymouth is a fraud upon the Licensing Acts, sinc e tt iu effect amounts to a removal for more than a quarter of a mile; _ (6) that the premises in respect of which the application was made did not on the last day upon which application could he made for » new license comply with the requirements of the Licensing Acts, nor were such premises in the condition required) by the licensing Acts when the $ application was heard; and upon further grounds. Dr Findlay said that a poll was taken in the Licensing District of Taranaki ■on the 6th December, 1899, and resulta vote that tho number of licenses existing should continue as it was. The number then was eleven. When the licensing meeting was held on the 7th June, 1901, the full number of licenses was still in existence. Applications for renewal of all these licenses had been sent in. One of the applications for renewal was in respect of a renewal for the Village Inn, situated at 801 l Block, over thre e miles from the town of New Plymouth. With respect to tie Village Inn, it was admitted that the committee at the meeting in June, 1900, expressed itself as dissatisfied with tho building. In February, 1901, some seven months after that meeting, O’Driscoll purchased th e premises of the Village Inn.* That wag som e four months before the Licensing meeting of June, 1901. The Village Inn was not rebuilt, nor was the existing building improved in any way up to the time of O’Driscoll’s application for a renewal of the license for it. The report of the police inspector tc, the last licensing meeting was that the building was unfit for occupation. On these facts. Dr Findlay invited the Supreme Court to ihfer that O’Driscoll bought.the premises at Bell Block-not intending * to get the license therefor renewed, but with the intention of transferring or removing th e license to New Plymouth. Having purchased . the Village Inn premises, O’Driscoll began the erection of a house in New Plymouth. Mr Justice Denniston: I don’t suppose your inference is disputed. ' The only question is whether he was entitled to the transfer or removal.

Dr Findlay said that on the 25th April, O’Driscoll applied for.a renewal of the Village Inn license. . . Mr Skerrett; The 10th May was th« last day for lodging notice and affixing notice to the doorway. Dr Findlay said that oh the 11th May O’Driscoll- lodged his application for a new license for the house under erection hy him in Now Plymouth. On the 30th May, two memorials or petitions ' were lodged against the granting of the license. . That was the state of things at the hearing on the 7th June. Applications for renewal of all the old licenses were in. There wera also three applications for new licenses. One at these w* in respect of another house at Bell Block, one was in respect of a boarding-house (an old building) in New Plymouth, and the Other was in respect of O’Driscoll’s house (the Hotel Commonwealth), then in course of erection in New Plymouth. The business of the meeting began on the 7th June. The defendant Stanford sat as licensing committee, as no committee had been elected. Application was made to him. to take the applications for renewal first. He refused to do so, and declared that applications for new licenses should he taken first, as provided by statute. John Searle’s application for a license for the hoarding-house in New Plymouth was first called. It was for a new license, and was heard to a conclusion. .The decision was reserved. Michael Brennan’s application, which was for a new license, for another house at Bell, Block, was next taken. That also was heard to a conclusion, and the decision reserved. Then the defendant O’Driscoll’s application for a new license for the Hotel Commonwealth in New Plymouth . was taken. Some seventeen witnesses gave evidence and were crossexamined. There was a difference as to what next took place, but counsel was content to accept the statement in Mr Weston’s affidavit, which was to the following effect: —“During the bearing on the Bth June, and just before stating that I had no farther evidence to bring in support of O’Dnscoll’s application, I proposed to put in evidence a notice in writing signed by O’Driscoll as owner of the Village Inn Hotel and premises whose signature was duly witnessed and signed by Charles Thomas Bundle, of New Plymouth, aerated- water naanufacturer, the mortgagee of the Village Inn, for whom I was acting, which signature was duly witnessed, withdrawing the application for a renewal or a publican’s license for the Village Inn. Dr Findlay, as counsel for some of the signatories to the memorials, objected to the withdrawal being put in. whereupon, before Mr Stanford had ruled upon the objection, I handed the notice of withdrawal, dated the 7th June, 1901, to A. H. Holmes, the clerk of the Licensing Committee, and called him as a witness to produce ajl the papers in his possession as clerk in connection witn the application for the renewal or a publican’s license for the Village Ihn. Dr Findlay thereupon objected.to the pacers being put in, but Mr Stanford ruled that he had no power to prevent Mr Holmes from being called and producing the notice of application for such renewal and the written notice of withdrawal of the same. Mr Atkinson, as

.counsel for certain signatories to tho memorials, raised the point whether such notice of withdrawal was sufficient, and whether the withdrawal of such application for renewal ought not legally to bo made in open Court at the time when such application for renewal was called on. I then stated that I had no further evidence to offer on behalf of O’Driscoll’s application, but that if Mr Stanford had any doubt as to whether th e notice of withdrawal was not sufficient, that inasmuch as the withdrawal involved a reduction in the number of licenses in the district, while the local option poll in 1899 was against reduction or abolition, in the interests of the public, before the proceedings on O’Dris. coil’s application were formally dosed, I would ask Mr Stanford to adjourn the further hearing of the application until th© applications for tho various renewals _ could be called on, when tho notice of withdrawal could be formally confirmed, and' Mr Stanford could then decide which of the applications for now licenses it was most in the public interest should be granted. Dr Findlay , objected to any such adjournment, and asked counsel for _ O’Driscoll to agree that the application for the new license for O’Driscoll should bo then granted without further evidence or argument on either side, in order to test the validity of the preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the committee to grant such license already raised by him. Counsel for O’Drisooll declined to agree to any proposal from the other side. Mr Stanford, without giving any ruling whatever, then stated that as it was one o’clock he would adjourn the proceedings of the committee until two o’clock. At that hour he intimated that as the hearing of applications for new licenses had taken and was likely to take much longer than he expected, he would now dispose of the applications for transfers and renewals, in order that licensees should not have to remain anv longer in attendance. The application for the renewal of the license for the Village Inn was then called on among the. other applications for renewals, and counsel stated that it had been and was withdrawn. Dr Findlay objected to the withdrawal, but Mr Stanford ruled that he could not prevent it, and, indeed, had no application before him, as it had been previously withdrawn. After the applications for transfers and renewals had heen^, disposed of, the hearing of the application or O’Driscoll for a new”license was renewed.” Dr Findlay went on to saythat Mr Stanford reserved his decision in O’Driscoll’s case also. The decisions in the three applications for new licenses; were thus all reserved. There was an adjournment td the 13th June, then to the 27th June, and finally to the Ist July. No further evidence was called at any of the adjournments. The license of the Village Inn continued in existence till the end of June. No grant of a new license could take place until that license had expired. It was submitted that the adi journments took place with the object of 1 permitting "the Village Inn license to expire. Counsel made no suggestion of mala fide* against the committee. Notice of the motion for /prohibition was served on Mr Stanford on'the 29th June. As the magistrate granted a license fp.r the Hotel Commonwealth, and the _ license itself was issued, or taken out immediately after the certificate was given, there was now/nothing to'prohibit; 'hut in the alternative, a writ , of certiorari was moved fori . The argument''of the case will be'concluded tKi s morning. ’